[NTLUG:Discuss] Can anyone verify this?

[Darin W. Smith]

I've read a number of reports to this effect.  The one linked to by 
Slashdot has some excerpts from an interview with a SCO spokesman about 
this.

The way I read all this:

1) SCO admits that IBM, not SCO, owns the copyrights to the JFS, RCU, and 
NUMA code that IBM contributed to the Linux kernel.

2) SCO says that copyright doesn't matter because this is about breach-of- 
contract.

The breach-of-contract is in regards to the Unix System V license, which 
says that licensees cannot distribute the "Unix Software Product" source or 
"derivative works" of it.  SCO is classifying the JFS, RCU, and NUMA code 
as a "derivative work" of SysV, since it first appeared in a SysV-licensed 
product--AIX.

The way I see it, they've got their work cut out for them in trying to show 
how it is truly a derivative work.  IBM also developed a JFS for OS/2, for 
instance...so does SCO get the right to sue everyone who uses OS/2 for 
licensing fees?  The simple fact is, that unless the code is so dependent 
on SysV itself that it could not conceivably operate outside SysV--or 
utilizes fundamental SysV methods in such a way that those SysV methods 
themselves had to be transplanted into Linux, then I don't see how it can 
be a derivate work.  The code is owned by IBM, and they can do what they 
want with it--so long as they have taken the due diligence to make sure 
that their own OS features (which were used to distinguish their product 
from someone elses, like Solaris, IRIX, etc.) can be maintained 
independently of the SysV code (no pollution between the two).

So why, I may ask, has SCO chosen to go after IBM?  Why not SGI?  IRIX 
was/is a SysV-based Unix, and they have provided much support to the Linux 
community, including making available a version of XFS.  The simple, sweet 
answer is that IBM is a (financially) plump target, while SGI is not (I 
know, I had stock--and still have some MIPS stock).

If copyrights have nothing to do with it, then why has SCO cared so much 
about the Unix SysV copyrights and claimed that they will bolster their 
case?

It's all FUD on SCO's part.  Twisted half-truths become the most insidious 
lies.

The ONLY piece of all this that could *concievably* be a "derivative work" 
is NUMA support.  But it seems to me that the code necessary to run on a 
particular architecture or class of architecture--though it may be closely 
tied to the OS code (as would be a filesystem, as well)--it is still a 
"support" function for the OS as a whole--nor does it need to be 
derived/inspired from anything existing in the OS code itself.

Considering IBM's well-known clean-room policies, and those that they 
employed specifically with the code in question, I think IBM's lawyers will 
squash SCO's lawyers like a bug.

Darin

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:38:42 -0500, David Brown <frag at phrenetictheory.org> 
wrote:

> I read about this article over on rootprompt.org the other day that talks 
> about SCO backing off the claims of System V code in Linux and that... 
> well here is an excerp
>
> "SCO (SCOX) says it now owns the Unix System V copyright registrations. 
> However SCO also now agrees that it does not own the IBM-developed AIX 
> code copyrights. SCO-Caldera also admits that it does not own the 
> copyrights for the JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code that IBM contributed 
> to the Linux kernel -- or other IBM-developed AIX code that IBM 
> contributed to the Linux kernel."
>
> This article was posted on MozillaQuest.com which I generally take their 
> articles with a grain of salt.  I noticed the article is now posted on 
> Slashdot also. (althought it claims it's from The Register)  Can anyone 
> verify these claims?  If they are "real" then SCO is backing off 
> attacking the Linux community and just going after IBM now?
>
> Anyway, like I said I take MozillaQuest.com articles with a grain of 
> salt, and was just trying to verify this.
>
> Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>



-- 
D!
Darin W. Smith
AIM: JediGrover
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite 
you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." --Mark 
Twain "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"